Science Misconduct Always Amplifies

As I wrote in my June 30 letter to the editor, “The injustice and damage are much, much wider” than a single professor engaging in research misconduct, and a single professor being threatened for exposing that research misconduct. 

On one hand, the damage spreads into the university administration. Queen’s apparently has been protecting the offending professor and threatening the whistle-blowing professor. That is contrary to norms of university conduct.

Someone should find out who at Queen’s decided this and why.

On the other hand, the damage spreads into the wider research community.

Science is a collective activity, conducted by a community of scholars that extends across national boundaries and extends across decades and centuries.

Corrupted science always amplifies and compounds itself because falsified science once published cannot be truly retracted.

Dr. Steve Iscoe’s June 30 letter, accompanying mine, reveals that the offending professor had different sets of co-authors for repeated republication of the same research report.

It is science fraud to claim authorship of research that one did not do. This sets aside whether or not there was also science fraud in the execution of that research and whether or not there were real world damages from applying faulty science.

If the same verbatim manuscript were published under different sets of co-authors, as Dr. Iscoe claims he witnessed, then those co-authors have committed science fraud. 

Likely, I surmise, those fraudulent co-authors were Queen’s students or Queen’s junior faculty who were induced by the offending professor to put their names on reports they did not help write.

If so, then among the corrective actions that Queen’s now needs to take are:

1) To contact those fraudulent co-authors, 

2) To apologize that a Queen’s professor induced them to do science fraud, and 

3) To take legal and fiscal liability for damages, if any, to those co-authors’ careers and incomes resulting from Queen’s failing to prevent science fraud by one of its senior employees.

Floyd Rudmin, 
Retired Professor of Social and Community Psychology,
University of Tromso, Norway

RE: Teacher’s (sic) association questions University’s actions

Queen’s takes allegations of research misconduct seriously, and our research integrity policy sets out a clear process for investigating such allegations. 

We have a responsibility to complainants to investigate allegations thoroughly, and to follow a transparent process. The University is also responsible for protecting the reputation of respondents who have been the subject of unfounded allegations regarding research misconduct. All Queen’s faculty members, staff and students — complainants and respondents alike — have the right to work in an environment free from intimidation or harassment. 

Any individual may bring forward a new allegation of research misconduct. And while we appreciate the interest that complainants often show in the process, our responsibility as an institution is to follow our policy and procedures and not assume an outcome before an investigation is completed. For many reasons, we expect this process to be conducted in a confidential manner that is respectful of all parties involved. 

All Canadian universities that receive federal government research funding are required to have a formal research integrity policy that outlines the process the university will follow when promoting research integrity or when dealing with issues involving allegations of research misconduct. 

As the Vice-Principal (Research), I have the responsibility of overseeing this process and determining whether there is a prima facie case for an investigation. 

The university must report back to the Secretariat for the Responsible Conduct of Research (SRCR), which is an oversight body that represents the Tri-Council Agencies, made up of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), on the actions it has taken (which includes a decision not to investigate).

All investigative reports that the SRCR receives are in turn reviewed by an independent board that examines the report and the appropriateness of the process and outcomes identified therein. Thus, all allegations and assessments of those allegations are ultimately reviewed by a third party external to the university.

We work closely with the SRCR to update our policies and respond to changing circumstances. While universities have to be able to self-monitor, the transparency of our processes and the oversight of a third party help keep the university accountable. 

It is in the university’s interest to promote research integrity. When a finding is made, appropriate action is taken. However, when an allegation is deemed to be unfounded, we expect complainants to cease behaviour that could be deemed to be harassing or that infringes upon the rights of members of our community. We also expect complainants to respect the confidentiality of information that may, quite appropriately, be shared with them throughout the process.

Steven N. Liss. 
Vice-Principal (Research)